Posts by Cassius

Just for future planning purposes, after a while here in "General Discussion" we'll move this thread to the Philodemus section. I'll probably also link it or create a version of it for the "Justice" section as well, probably to point up the "Typology Chart" that Bryan linked above, so we can have a "forms of government" discussion. Such discussion is fully appropriate given its discussion in the texts, and it won't violate the "no politics" rule so long as we stay clear of discussion modern historical particulars that still evoke lots of emotion.

Given commonalities with parts of Aristotle at some future point it's probably worth citing to the section of Aristotle where the typology is explained, and then we can compare the full discussion there to the surviving Epicurean material and look for parallels / contrasts.

There are a lot of interesting statements in this Rhetoric that should be explored but it all seems kind of disjointed due to the fragmentation so we'll have to pull it out carefully.

Note - We'll want to correlate that with the Boeri book: Interview With Dr. Marcelo Boeri: Theory and Practice In Epicurean Political Philosophy

The "number of shapes" question and the others questioned should now be updated. Thanks all and please continue to report questions.

It would be good to collect references like this and compare them with for example Aristotle. Didn't he have some kind of listing of types of government according to how large was the ruling class, and he also had a classification of good and bad forms of each (?).

But the main thing is that it would be helpful to collect the sources, including the reference to Philodemus being sympathetic to Caesar.

I have these two links:

v.23 (1919-1920) - Transactions of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences - Biodiversity Heritage Library

Philodemi Rhetorica (trans. Hubbell) OPTIMIZED : Hubbell : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Philodemus - On Rhetoric - Translated by Hubbell BEST COPY

archive.org

Here's the "worst form of government" --- https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/32303#page/385/mode/1up

Martin: Think there is a better way to word that? Simply change it to "Why do atoms move?" I need to look back at the way it is worded in Lucretius and the letter to Herodotus.

Yes indeed. I am thinking also that with Youtube processing it speech-to-text, that text will generate a lot more hits than previously.

Over the last ten days with help from Remus and others, we've added a significant number of new quiz questions to the quiz section. There are three new basic sets of questions on Epicurean Canonics, Physics, and Ethics, and the "Norman DeWitt's Epicurus and His Philosophy" quiz is also new. I think most of the questions are pretty good, and I am confident that the answers are pretty close to correct, but before we let these get too far out into the wild it would be helpful if our regulars go through these and see if they disagree with any of the question/answer combinations.

I am learning that developing multiple-choice questions is something of an art, and we'll continue to appreciate volunteer assistance for developing new ones.

For the moment, please help us check out the latest quizzes here:

Welcome To the EpicureanFriends Quiz Page! - Epicureanfriends.com

www.epicureanfriends.com

Happy Birthday to akurvata! Learn more about akurvata and say happy birthday on akurvata's timeline: akurvata

One more cite - this is the Lucretius1743 edition, in the 100's

Nor are you to believe that the sacred mansions of the gods are placed in any parts of this world of ours, for the nature of the gods is so subtle, and at so remote a distance from our senses, that it can scarce be apprehended by the mind. Since therefore it cannot be touched or felt by our hands, it can touch nothing that it is the object of our senses, for nothing has a power to touch that is incapable of being touched itself. For this reason the abodes of the gods must be far different from ours; they must be subtle, and answerable to their own nature. But the truth of this I shall more fully prove in another place.

Issues I want to be sure to include in this episode:

1. Is "pattern" correct usage in the context of prolepsis? Is the Latin "exemplum" (see Lucretius below)? Is "example" or "notion" a better term? Does "pattern" imply intelligent designer?
2. Is "recognition" correct usage?
3. Are any "patterns" innate at birth? (beavers and dams?)
4. Relationship of "patterns" and "images"
5. Does the mind itself create patterns?
6. Lucretius 5:181, see post 40 above: [181-Bailey] Further, how was there first implanted in the gods a pattern for the begetting of things, yea, and the concept of man, so that they might know and see in their mind what they wished to do, or in what way was the power of the first-beginnings ever learnt, or what they could do when they shifted their order one with the other, if nature did not herself give a model of creation? For so many first-beginnings of things in many ways, driven on by blows from time everlasting until now, and moved by their own weight, have been wont to be borne on, and to unite in every way, and essay everything that they might create, meeting one with another, that it is no wonder if they have fallen also into such arrangements, and have passed into such movements, as those whereby this present sum of things is carried on, ever and again replenished.
   1. Martin Ferguson Smith - Furthermore, how was a model for the creation of things implanted in the gods? How did they obtain the conception of human beings, so that they might know and perceive in their minds what they wished to produce? And how did they ever recognize the capacity of the primary particles and the potential effect of their different arrangements, if nature herself did not furnish them with a pattern for creation? The fact is that from time everlasting countless elements, impelled by blows and by their 190 own weight, have never ceased to move in manifold ways, making all kinds of unions and experimenting with everything they could combine to create. 17 It is not surprising therefore that they have at last fallen into such arrangements, and acquired such movements, as those whereby this aggregate of things is maintained and constantly renewed.
   2. MFS Note 16 - 16. 181-186: The same argument is used in 1046 1049, where Lucr. is maintaining that language cannot have been an artificial invention. The point is that neither the gods nor the inventors of language can have had a conception of what they wanted to create, if nature had not already created a world or language that they could use as a model. The argument depends on an important principle of Epicurean epistemology, which is that repeated reception of sense impressions creates in the mind a general conception of each class of things, and that without these conceptions, to which further sense impressions arc referred, scientific knowledge would be impossible. On (pre)conceptions as a criterion of truth, see p. xxv.
   3. MFS Note page xxv - "Sensation by itself is irrational and incapable of memory, but the repeated reception of sense impressions creates in the mind general
      conceptions or all classes or things. Both in Greek and in Latin these general conceptions arc often (though not by Lucretius) called "preconceptions," because, once created in the mind, they remain there, and further sense impressions are referred to them for testing and identification. However, it is imp0l1ant to understand that the (pre)eonceptions are not innate, but derived from sensation. Indeed it is because they are derived from sensation that they arc valid. Without them, memory, thought, and knowledge would be impossible, and they are the second criterion of truth.
7. 

Welcome to Episode 235 of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the most complete presentation of Epicurean philosophy left to us from the ancient world.

Each week we walk you through the Epicurean texts, and we discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. If you find the Epicurean worldview attractive, we invite you to join us in the study of Epicurus at EpicureanFriends.com.

For our new listeners, let me remind you of several ground rules for both our podcast and our forum.

First: Our aim is to bring you an accurate presentation of classical Epicurean philosophy as the ancient Epicureans understood it.

Second: We won't be talking about modern political issues in this podcast. How you apply Epicurus in your own life is of course entirely up to you. We call this approach "Not Neo-Epicurean, But Epicurean." Epicurean philosophy is a philosophy of its own, it's not the same as Stoicism, Humanism, Buddhism, Taoism, Atheism, Libertarianism or Marxism - it is unique and must be understood on its own, not in terms of any conventional modern morality.

Third: One of the most important things to keep in mind is that the Epicureans often used words very differently than we do today. To the Epicureans, Gods were not omnipotent or omniscient, so Epicurean references to "Gods" do not mean at all the same thing as in major religions today. In the Epicurean theory of knowledge, all sensations are true, but that does not mean all opinions are true, but that the raw data reported by the senses is reported without the injection of opinion, as the opinion-making process takes place in the mind, where it is subject to mistakes, rather than in the senses. In Epicurean ethics, "Pleasure" refers not ONLY to sensory stimulation, but also to every experience of life which is not felt to be painful. The classical texts show that Epicurus was not focused on luxury, like some people say, but neither did he teach minimalism, as other people say. Epicurus taught that all experiences of life fall under one of two feelings - pleasure and pain - and those feelings -- and not gods, idealism, or virtue - are the guides that Nature gave us by which to live. More than anything else, Epicurus taught that the universe is not supernatural in any way, and that means there's no life after death, and any happiness we'll ever have comes in THIS life, which is why it is so important not to waste time in confusion.

Today we are continuing to review the Epicurean sections of Cicero's "On the Nature of The Gods," as presented by the Epicurean spokesman Velleius, beginning at the end of Section 10.

For the main text we are using primarily the Yonge translation, available here at Archive.org. The text which we include in these posts is available here. We will also refer to the public domain version of the Loeb series, which contains both Latin and English, as translated by H. Rackham.

Additional versions can be found here:

• Frances Brooks 1896 translation at Online Library of Liberty
• Lacus Curtius Edition (Rackham)
• PDF Of Loeb Edition at Archive.org by Rackham
• Gutenberg.org version by CD Yonge 

A list of arguments presented will be maintained here.

Today's Text

XVII. Here, then, you see the foundation of this question clearly laid; for since it is the constant and universal opinion of mankind, independent of education, custom, or law, that there are Gods, it must necessarily follow that this knowledge is implanted in our minds, or, rather, innate in us. That opinion respecting which there is a general agreement in universal nature must infallibly be true; therefore it must be allowed that there are Gods; for in this we have the concurrence, not only of almost all philosophers, but likewise of the ignorant and illiterate. It must be also confessed that the point is established that we have naturally this idea, as I said before, or prenotion, of the existence of the Gods. As new things require new names, so that prenotion was called πρόληψις by Epicurus; an appellation never used before. On the same principle of reasoning, we think that the Gods are happy and immortal; for that nature which hath assured us that there are Gods has likewise imprinted in our minds the knowledge of their immortality and felicity; and if so, what Epicurus hath declared in these words is true: “That which is eternally happy cannot be burdened with any labor itself, nor can it impose any labor on another; nor can it be influenced by resentment or favor: because things which are liable to such feelings must be weak and frail.” We have said enough to prove that we should worship the Gods with piety, and without superstition, if that were the only question.

For the superior and excellent nature of the Gods requires a pious adoration from men, because it is possessed of immortality and the most exalted felicity; for whatever excels has a right to veneration, and all fear of the power and anger of the Gods should be banished; for we must understand that anger and affection are inconsistent with the nature of a happy and immortal being. These apprehensions being removed, no dread of the superior powers remains. To confirm this opinion, our curiosity leads us to inquire into the form and life and action of the intellect and spirit of the Deity.

XVIII. With regard to his form, we are directed partly by nature and partly by reason. All men are told by nature that none but a human form can be ascribed to the Gods; for under what other image did it ever appear to any one either sleeping or waking? and, without having recourse to our first notions, reason itself declares the same; for as it is easy to conceive that the most excellent nature, either because of its happiness or immortality, should be the most beautiful, what composition of limbs, what conformation of lineaments, what form, what aspect, can be more beautiful than the human? Your sect, Lucilius (not like my friend Cotta, who sometimes says one thing and sometimes another), when they represent the divine art and workmanship in the human body, are used to describe how very completely each member is formed, not only for convenience, but also for beauty. Therefore, if the human form excels that of all other animal beings, as God himself is an animated being, he must surely be of that form which is the most beautiful. Besides, the Gods are granted to be perfectly happy; and nobody can be happy without virtue, nor can virtue exist where reason is not; and reason can reside in none but the human form; the Gods, therefore, must be acknowledged to be of human form; yet that form is not body, but something like body; nor does it contain any blood, but something like blood. Though these distinctions were more acutely devised and more artfully expressed by Epicurus than any common capacity can comprehend; yet, depending on your understanding, I shall be more brief on the subject than otherwise I should be. Epicurus, who not only discovered and understood the occult and almost hidden secrets of nature, but explained them with ease, teaches that the power and nature of the Gods is not to be discerned by the senses, but by the mind; nor are they to be considered as bodies of any solidity, or reducible to number, like those things which, because of their firmness, he calls Στερέμνια; but as images, perceived by similitude and transition. As infinite kinds of those images result from innumerable individuals, and centre in the Gods, our minds and understanding are directed towards and fixed with the greatest delight on them, in order to comprehend what that happy and eternal essence is.

Happy Birthday to Scott! Learn more about Scott and say happy birthday on Scott's timeline: Scott

Episode 234 of the Lucretius Today Podcast is now available. This week we deal with Marcus Aurelius' views of fate and the gods, and we discuss the canonical basis for the Epicurean view of divinity.

For those of you who follow channels on Youtube, please note that the Lucretius Today Podcast is now available in full as a Youtube Channel:

We're still all audio, of course, but Youtube has "ingested" (their term) the full podcast archive, so now those who use Youtube as their main media center will be able to subscribe and listen to old episodes and follow new episodes as they are released directly in Youtube.

It also looks like closed captioning is operational, so that means Youtube has processed the audio into text, which should make the content of the episodes more "findable" than before.

There may be some hiccups as the "ingestion" settles in, but I've tested it briefly and it looks to be fully operational.

If anyone tries this out and sees any modifications that need to be made to the settings, let us know!

If anyone gets a chance to listen to Dr. Glidden again, I suggest listening closely to the way the phrases the "pattern" facility. To be fair to Dr. Glidden, we're asking him about papers he wrote 30 years ago, so i wouldn't expect him to be ultra-precise in his wording.

For example, I think a lot of us like the idea of "patterns" being involved. But is a prolepsis actually 'recognizing" a pattern, or "detecting" that a "shape" is involved, or exactly what?

For example in the the "stick" vs "snake" example that Don asks about - By the time we get to discussing "sticks" and "snakes" are we already past prolepsis and at the "conceptual" level?

I think Dr. Glidden is saying in significant part that the "anticipation' aspect involved is the "matching" or some other "processing" of "patterns," such that as with animals there is an "intuitive leap" that preserves the safety of the organism by guesswork at what the pattern or shape is going to reveal before it is fully recognized, and thus that helps preserve us from walking on snakes and the like, before we can consciously identify the words stick or snake or dynamite stick or anything else.

So the "anticipatory / matching / guesswork / intuitive" aspect of a process is probably at least partly involved.

By asking this question I am trying to continue to focus on identifying a word or a description of what it is that prolepses are processing: "For example in the the "stick" vs "snake" example that Don asks about - By the time we get to discussing "sticks" and "snakes" are we already past prolepsis and at the "conceptual" level?"

I think most of us agree that prolepses are working (1) before concepts are involved, and (2) somewhat "jumping ahead" so as to match and create reactions before conscious conceptual thought takes place.

I can see the likelihood of more than one source of these "patterns" - (1)conscious consideration of images as we grow up, as is the example of oxen used by Laertius, and also (2) "inborn" detection of certain patterns which accounts for how animals and babies and similar living being develop (or are born with) a pattern/shape-detection ability before they are exposed to any patterns/shapes in the first place. (As to item 2, I think we have to consider instinct such as bird migration (?) and beaver dam-building (?) in that discussion.)

This current episode will not likely include, but i will be sure next week's episode includes, discussion of Lucretius 5:181, which I see as important light on this question, as mentioned in post 40 above

Quote

[181] Further, how was there first implanted in the gods a pattern for the begetting of things, yea, and the concept of man, so that they might know and see in their mind what they wished to do, or in what way was the power of the first-beginnings ever learnt, or what they could do when they shifted their order one with the other, if nature did not herself give a model of creation? For so many first-beginnings of things in many ways, driven on by blows from time everlasting until now, and moved by their own weight, have been wont to be borne on, and to unite in every way, and essay everything that they might create, meeting one with another, that it is no wonder if they have fallen also into such arrangements, and have passed into such movements, as those whereby this present sum of things is carried on, ever and again replenished.

At the end of this episode (to be released soon) Joshua makes the recommendation that it would be helpful to review our interview with Dr. David Glidden in our prior Episode 166.

I agree with that recommendation, and I have been listening to it again myself. I think Dr. Glidden's approach has a lot of merit, and his viewpoint of prolepsis as being related to processing of patterns, and being pre-conceptual, largely goes against the platonic and stoic-influenced orthodoxy, and shares a lot of commonality with what i think a lot of us here are thinking.

I have a slight caution, however, to anyone who might be listening to the episode for the first time. You'll find that Dr. Glidden has a very strong Buddhist streak, so it should not be presumed that every aspect of what Dr. Glidden says is something with which all of us at EpicureanFriends would agree with. Those aspects of his commentary should be self-evident, and just like with all guests and all statements made on the podcast, people can accept or reject those as they like.

It's the 'materialist' nature of his analysis of Epicurus' view of prolepsis which is the focus of the discussion, and in that aspect I think his comments are uniformly helpful. Perhaps at some point we can get Dr. Glidden back on the show because he's a delightful and intelligent man, and his views on prolepsis are useful for thinking "outside the box" on prolepsis.

In an uncharacteristic bout of self-discipline, we stayed with the plan today and limited ourselves to finishing up on Marcus Aurelius and then reviewing basic Epicurean canonics theory before digging too far into Velleius' proleptic argument for the Epicurean view of gods.

Editing on the podcast is going well so it will be released possibly as soon as Monday night, but certainly no later than Tuesday. That will give us, one more week before memorializing in Podcast form next Sunday our attempt at unwinding the full argument.

I have gotten the feeling that you have been under the weather for longer than usual so I hope you feel better soon. The issue of prolepsis will still be there after you recover!

This is sort of a "fun" category because it calls for continued investigation and research, something that some of our participants are very good at! I've set up several topics here, moving them from other areas, and there are other topics to be added, such as the identity of the author of the 1743 Edition. I'll let Joshua start that one as he has been the lead researcher on it and has the best ideas.

A good example of a long-standing thread that has been moved here is the "Where is Epicurus in the School of Athens?" artwork.

If anyone thinks of prior threads that would be better off here than where they are, let us know and we will move them or at least post a "redirect" notice.

There are plenty of "unsolved questions" about philosophic issues, but let's restrict this forum to more "historical" or "fact" questions rather than general philosophic questions, which go better under the existing forum categories.

Check the link below to go to the new forum and see the list of threads:

"Unsolved Mysteries" of Epicurean History

This topic has already been referenced in the link below, but we can use this thread for the more specific tracking down of the question.

Post

RE: Lucretius' Appearance - Research into What He Looked Like

Here's another cameo in plaster that is supposed to be Lucretius.

epicureanfriends.com/wcf/attachment/3376/

c. 1820, Pietro Paoletti

As for Munro's ring, I have now traced its history for a period of more than 50 years. I will present my findings tomorrow evening

Joshua

January 24, 2023 at 5:52 PM